#Spygate

[Saint86]

2 minutes ago, DellBlockH said:

So Blackmore knows no more than the rest of us. I can't read the last bit as I no longer subscribe to the cess pit of X. Was it interesting?

 

[Turkish]

2 minutes ago, DellBlockH said:

So Blackmore knows no more than the rest of us. I can't read the last bit as I no longer subscribe to the cess pit of X. Was it interesting?

 

Course he doesn’t why would he?

reading that again how have we ended up in this ridiculous situation? It really does beggar belief that we’ve done such a stupid thing and so amateurishly. 

[egg]

11 minutes ago, Appy said:

A £10m fine and expulsion would be the most excessive punishment ever. 

Things like this, and comparisons to other decisions, keep being made. This was done to get an advantage in a match where, theoretically, we could have sewn up the tie, and got our place in a final with a massive prize. 

Trying to get an illegal advantage to help towards a £200m prize has no precedent, none, so we will be the precedent, and it won't be a finger wagging and token penalty. 

[LegalEagle]

8 minutes ago, Patrick Bateman said:

hahaahhahaha ... I just seen an old acquaintance of mine is on the board!! And no, I'm not. I haven't spoken to him for about 8 years, nice guy though. 

Nick Hayes?

[Toadhall Saint]

2 minutes ago, DellBlockH said:

So Blackmore knows no more than the rest of us. I can't read the last bit as I no longer subscribe to the cess pit of X. Was it interesting?

 

It’s the club not individual. Any individual punishment would come from the FA later.

[Dr. Kucho]

8 minutes ago, BH_Saint said:

I would imagine that the Boro analysts would have recognised him.

Or they knew he was coming and the poor kid was being set up #newtwisttospygate.

I am of to work, this is going to be a day of constantly checking my phone and possibly a long visit to the toilet to read the full statement once released. 

Fingers crossed it’s just a fine and slap on the wrists. 

[Sheaf Saint]

Just now, Saint86 said:

They can't just "make an example" of us. We would appeal, blow up the entire playoff schedule, and potentially sue them for a significant amount of money.

Exactly, which is why the punishment has to be proportionate to the crime.

we broke a rule, yes. But we gained no significant advantage from it (like benefitting from having players we couldn't actually afford over an entire season), therefore a huge fine and expulsion will be excessive and they know we will appeal it, throwing everything into utter chaos. 

As much as the EFL may want to make an example of us, the reality is they can't because of the total mess they would be creating for themselves if they do.

[Appy]

7 minutes ago, egg said:

Things like this, and comparisons to other decisions, keep being made. This was done to get an advantage in a match where, theoretically, we could have sewn up the tie, and got our place in a final with a massive prize. 

Trying to get an illegal advantage to help towards a £200m prize has no precedent, none, so we will be the precedent, and it won't be a finger wagging and token penalty. 

I’m comparing it to any punishment in all of sport. 
 

Not just in this sort of incident, it would be massively excessive. 
 

To deny us a chance at a £200m+ game but go “oh by the way, we’ll have another £10m” off you too. 
 

Surely you think that’s excessive in any context. 

Edited 4 hours ago by Appy

[LegalEagle]

1 minute ago, egg said:

Things like this, and comparisons to other decisions, keep being made. This was done to get an advantage in a match where, theoretically, we could have sewn up the tie, and got our place in a final with a massive prize. 

Trying to get an illegal advantage to help towards a £200m prize has no precedent, none, so we will be the precedent, and it won't be a finger wagging and token penalty. 

Looking at the Chair of the panel - the KC, and assuming he’s chairing this, whilst a litigation background he has a strong background in mediation, arbitration and ADR generally. In my experience, not normally the ‘Hang ‘em’ High’ type. They look for some middle ground and are generally quite proportionate. Not soft. Just proportionate.

[egg]

Just now, Appy said:

I’m comparing it to any punishment in Ali of sport. 
 

Not just in this sort of incident, it would be massively excessive. 
 

To deny us a chance at a £200m+ game but go “oh by the way, we’ll have another £10m” off you too. 
 

Surely you think that’s excessive in any context. 

All comparisons are comparing apples with kebabs. There is no legal comparable relevant to this; it's entirely unprecedented. 

[sadoldgit]

6 minutes ago, DellBlockH said:

So Blackmore knows no more than the rest of us. I can't read the last bit as I no longer subscribe to the cess pit of X. Was it interesting?

 

He says that the club is on trial and will face any sanctions but individual action could be taken against any individual later by the FA. I’m not sure that is true because only EFL rules have (allegedly) been broken.

[Toadhall Saint]

3 minutes ago, egg said:

Things like this, and comparisons to other decisions, keep being made. This was done to get an advantage in a match where, theoretically, we could have sewn up the tie, and got our place in a final with a massive prize. 

Trying to get an illegal advantage to help towards a £200m prize has no precedent, none, so we will be the precedent, and it won't be a finger wagging and token penalty. 

I’m not sure why some can’t see this. We are the precedent that precedent needs to be a deterrent to others.

[egg]

1 minute ago, LegalEagle said:

Looking at the Chair of the panel - the KC, and assuming he’s chairing this, whilst a litigation background he has a strong background in mediation, arbitration and ADR generally. In my experience, not normally the ‘Hang ‘em’ High’ type. They look for some middle ground and are generally quite proportionate. Not soft. Just proportionate.

Yep. He's an ADR man, although he sits as a Recorder in the crown court, so will be used to dishing out unpleasant penalties. 

[Saint86]

7 minutes ago, Sheaf Saint said:

Exactly, which is why the punishment has to be proportionate to the crime.

we broke a rule, yes. But we gained no significant advantage from it (like benefitting from having players we couldn't actually afford over an entire season), therefore a huge fine and expulsion will be excessive and they know we will appeal it, throwing everything into utter chaos. 

As much as the EFL may want to make an example of us, the reality is they can't because of the total mess they would be creating for themselves if they do.

I agree with others that say it will be a fine. Obviously we don't know the details of this case, but i am expecting circa £500k-£1M. If there is a to be a sporting sanction, i am expecting 2-3points. Leeds got £200k for spying for an entire season and having a dossier on every side... that is a far bigger impact over the course of the season on final league position and impacts every other side (and particularly those that competed with leeds at the top end).

This is a stand alone case relating to spying before the 1st leg of the semi final. We're not charged here for spying since January or anything like that. People need to step outside of the boro incited media witch hunt (and all its associated hyperbole). This is a stand alone offence that we are accused of... it completely blew up in our faces, and clearly it actually worked in boro's favour in that 1st leg. Plus, how meaningful do we seriously think it could have been, it was a young lad on his mobile at the other end of the training ground, and saints travelled the next day and would not have been able to do much analysis with it, or devise counter drills etc. Similarly, as numerous experts have said, both saints and boro basically set up as standard for the game.

Or is someone going to die on a hill that the reason Boro didn't win that game wasn't because they're strikers are not very good?

Edited 4 hours ago by Saint86

[LordHester]

5 minutes ago, egg said:

Things like this, and comparisons to other decisions, keep being made. This was done to get an advantage in a match where, theoretically, we could have sewn up the tie, and got our place in a final with a massive prize. 

Trying to get an illegal advantage to help towards a £200m prize has no precedent, none, so we will be the precedent, and it won't be a finger wagging and token penalty. 

But it still has to be proportionate. Let's say Saints are found guilty of one offence of spying, that it was known about through the club. We're fined £10m and thrown out of the playoffs. What happens then if, next season, it's found that a different club have been spying throughout the year on multiple clubs to gain an advantage? Where does the punishment go then, if the first punishment made under this regulation has already gone nuclear?

[Toussaint]

1 hour ago, AlexLaw76 said:

Right, prediction time.

whats going to be the fallout

my views - it will be determine that in the balance of probabilities this was more than just a lone wolf and a more orchestrated thing, possible relating to the manager or Spors.

We will not be contesting the playoff final. Whether Boro are or not is another matter 

Cleared of all charges, I dreamt this, therefore it will come to pass. 

[LordHester]

2 minutes ago, Saint86 said:

Leeds got £200k for spying for an entire season and having a dossier on every side...

This is the thing that's often missed when people say Saints' punishment should be much worse than Leeds' – Saints are (other than on the Boro boards) only being accused of one incident (that we know of).

[Dman]

1 minute ago, LordHester said:

But it still has to be proportionate. Let's say Saints are found guilty of one offence of spying, that it was known about through the club. We're fined £10m and thrown out of the playoffs. What happens then if, next season, it's found that a different club have been spying throughout the year on multiple clubs to gain an advantage? Where does the punishment go then, if the first punishment made under this regulation has already gone nuclear?

Yep. A points deduction & fine, whilst doesn't benefit boro in the immediate term (shouuld it anyway??), is something that can be consistently applied. 

They're not going to kick a side out of the leauge for it. 

[LegalEagle]

1 minute ago, Toadhall Saint said:

I’m not sure why some can’t see this. We are the precedent that precedent needs to be a deterrent to others.

Yes there needs to be a deterrent but there will be a keeping in mind that if they kick us out then this goes one place only. Initially an appeal by the club and if that fails, it ends up in the High Court. That could take at least two years to get to trial. The EFL don’t want to be embroiled in lengthy and expensive litigation. They’re not that stupid. Hit us with a hefty fine and points, it’s the middle ground. They can amend the rules and they get it off their plate. Up to Boro then if they sue us but no longer the EFL’s problem.

[Nolan]

Prediction:

we'll play in the final 

Middlesborough will be awarded another 10 shots off target for the first leg match

Will Salt will gain an iPhone sponsorship deal

[St Louis]

SPYGATE LIVE 🤪 
For those interested in wasting another day hitting refresh....
https://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/sport/26118726.spygate-live---middlesbrough-southampton-play-off-verdict/

[Saint86]

7 minutes ago, Toadhall Saint said:

I’m not sure why some can’t see this. We are the precedent that precedent needs to be a deterrent to others.

The laws are the deterrent - not the punishment. Punishments must fit the crime. Which in this case is a stand alone and fairly inconsequential and amateurish attempt, and a far cry from Bielsa's leeds having a detailed dossier prepared on each of their opponents that season.

Edited 4 hours ago by Saint86

[Secret Site Agent]

46 minutes ago, die Mannyschaft said:

I think we will get removed from final only because its got to epic proportions with Middlesbrough having too much influence over EFL and the panel will not be impartial due to all the incorrect facts,  assumptions on Saints being such an organised spying outfit during season and applying football tactics to suit each team. 

Boro have too much power plus with other teams they influence like the clubs thet have named as been spied on.

The papers, media, pundits and Sky have had lots of time to present the case on behalf of Boro and anyone else that Saints shouldn't be in final. There is no counter news reports or anything from Saints. Its all very quiet on our side.

The 3 people on panel will be influenced by what the see and hear and its very unlikely they will just look at what extent the affect of spying was on Saints season or the 2 leg semi final.

The 2nd leg went ahead and Boro should have refused to play but they went ahead with it and that's now caused the who should be in final. 

I dont agree.

These people are professional and HAVE to be impartial or, if found to have a biased view, there goes their career, (or sideline).

I'd guess they don't even read the papers or on line in case there is an appeal.

They are not the sort of people who try to read between the lines, believe in idle speculation, and are swayed by rumour and innuendo.  Why they aren't the sort of people who would get caught in their jeans and a tee shirt filming training on their I-Phone.

[Toadhall Saint]

1 minute ago, LordHester said:

This is the thing that's often missed when people say Saints' punishment should be much worse than Leeds' – Saints are (other than on the Boro boards) only being accused of one incident (that we know of).

We have 2 charges against us. We could receive 200k for the first and more fir the d second.

[trousers]

11 minutes ago, Turkish said:

Course he doesn’t why would he?

reading that again how have we ended up in this ridiculous situation? It really does beggar belief that we’ve done such a stupid thing and so amateurishly. 

Indeed... I still maintain that the reality - if it is a simple case of willful rule breaking - could/would end up being more bizarre and baffling than some of the supposed 'conspiracy theories'...

[Toussaint]

1 minute ago, St Louis said:

SPYGATE LIVE 🤪 
For those interested in wasting another day hitting refresh....
https://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/sport/26118726.spygate-live---middlesbrough-southampton-play-off-verdict/

What a twatty article, Tonda is guilty because he either chose , or was advised , not to defend himself to a hostile kangaroo court of hacks desperate for clicks? 

[Osvaldorama]

36 minutes ago, Toadhall Saint said:

So a potential appellant is asking for due process to be “hurried up” hmmm not sure that would happen.

Yeah, zero chance of that. It would be in our interest to delay and delay

 

(much the same way Boro were time wasting from minute 4 in the 2nd leg, ironically)

[sadoldgit]

10 minutes ago, egg said:

Things like this, and comparisons to other decisions, keep being made. This was done to get an advantage in a match where, theoretically, we could have sewn up the tie, and got our place in a final with a massive prize. 

Trying to get an illegal advantage to help towards a £200m prize has no precedent, none, so we will be the precedent, and it won't be a finger wagging and token penalty. 

There is a massive difference between “trying” to get an advantage and succeeding in getting an advantage. I’d be very surprised if our pathetic attempt at “trying” would not be taken into account if found guilty. It is all about proportionality.

[Toadhall Saint]

2 minutes ago, LegalEagle said:

Yes there needs to be a deterrent but there will be a keeping in mind that if they kick us out then this goes one place only. Initially an appeal by the club and if that fails, it ends up in the High Court. That could take at least two years to get to trial. The EFL don’t want to be embroiled in lengthy and expensive litigation. They’re not that stupid. Hit us with a hefty fine and points, it’s the middle ground. They can amend the rules and they get it off their plate. Up to Boro then if they sue us but no longer the EFL’s problem.

Totally agree with all of that but until judgement is passed none of us know what they see as a deterrent 

[MB]

Hearing update: coffee and piss break underway.

[obelisk]

Surely there's been a spot of plea bargaining by now. Can't believe that everyone turns up this morning without any sort of contact at all so far.

I'm going to set off for the pub this afternoon to await the verdict.

[egg]

3 minutes ago, LegalEagle said:

Yes there needs to be a deterrent but there will be a keeping in mind that if they kick us out then this goes one place only. Initially an appeal by the club and if that fails, it ends up in the High Court. That could take at least two years to get to trial. The EFL don’t want to be embroiled in lengthy and expensive litigation. They’re not that stupid. Hit us with a hefty fine and points, it’s the middle ground. They can amend the rules and they get it off their plate. Up to Boro then if they sue us but no longer the EFL’s problem.

Yep, that's how I think it'll play out, although it's more touch and go than people want to believe. 

[skintsaint]

Just now, obelisk said:

I'm going to set off for the pub this afternoon to await the verdict.

Lucky bastard.

[Toussaint]

Just now, MB said:

Hearing update: coffee and piss break underway.

Are you spying? Probably not helpful given the circumstances. If you get caught follow these instructions…swallow your phone and say “it’s Gibbo what made me do it”

[Lord Duckhunter]

5 minutes ago, Dman said:

They're not going to kick a side out of the leauge for it. 

What if they decide the play offs aren’t part of the league, and are a separate competition. They wouldn’t deduct league points for a transgression in the League cup. 

[S-Clarke]

I don't understand why people think we're being booted out, it's too late for that. Just look at the facts.

The club have almost sold out the allocation and are still activley selling tickets this morning. Travel, accommodation has been booked by thousands of fans of both Hull and ourselves. 

The cost to expel us would be huge to the EFL, they'd have Hull up in arms, our fans up in arms, accommodation non-refundable and a right old mess. The fans are innocent in all of this and expulsion would harm the fans a lot, and I'm sure the authorities wouldn't see that as a fair trade for something we've had no involvement in.

The final is 23rd at 4:30 and it will happen as stands. If we were getting removed ourselves and Hull would have got wind by now. The hearing hasn't just 'started' today, things have been going on for a number of days.

It will be club and individual specific sanctions, fines, bans and suspended points deductions are all that's on the table if anything is proven. Expulsion at this late stage harms the fans and will create an almighty mess everywhere.

[sadoldgit]

10 minutes ago, Toadhall Saint said:

I’m not sure why some can’t see this. We are the precedent that precedent needs to be a deterrent to others.

I’m not sure why you can’t see that any sanction has to be proportionate. If deterrent’s actually worked there would be no offences.

[trousers]

7 minutes ago, Nolan said:

Will Salt will gain an iPhone sponsorship deal

Given him pointing an iPhone at a training session ultimately didn't achieve anything, I'm not so sure Apple would want to be associated with it TBH...

#morebanter

[Patrick Bateman]

7 minutes ago, MB said:

Hearing update: coffee and piss break underway.

Imagine the coffee break banter ... 

[trousers]

7 minutes ago, Toussaint said:

What a twatty article, Tonda is guilty because he either chose , or was advised , not to defend himself to a hostile kangaroo court of hacks desperate for clicks? 

And, as Adam Blackmore has pointed out, it's not within the scope of today's hearing for individuals to be tried... That will come later via the FA, if necessary...

[Stripey McStripe Shirt]

Whatever happens can we all just agree that Juninho was over rated?

[BH_Saint]

7 minutes ago, Toadhall Saint said:

We have 2 charges against us. We could receive 200k for the first and more fir the d second.

I'm wondering if the "utmost good faith" charge will be dropped as the "observing" charge covers that?

[Leighsterrr]

During all this not one person has said Will Salt might have been a decoy! Whilst they were all watching him "spying" did nobody notice our players were out on the golf course watching too? 😂

[trousers]

25 minutes ago, Osvaldorama said:

Yeah, zero chance of that. It would be in our interest to delay and delay

 

Or it might be in our interest to fully and speedily cooperate with the EFL in order to help get them out of the massive problem that any delay would cause them...?

"You scratch our back...etc"

(Usual caveat: yes, I know it doesn't work that way, but who understands how the subconscious mind works...? )

Edited 4 hours ago by trousers

[trousers]

11 minutes ago, obelisk said:

I'm going to set off for the pub this afternoon to await the verdict.

Have 7 pints for me please 👍🏻🍻

[EssEffCee]

8 minutes ago, S-Clarke said:

I don't understand why people think we're being booted out, it's too late for that. Just look at the facts.

The club have almost sold out the allocation and are still activley selling tickets this morning. Travel, accommodation has been booked by thousands of fans of both Hull and ourselves. 

The cost to expel us would be huge to the EFL, they'd have Hull up in arms, our fans up in arms, accommodation non-refundable and a right old mess. The fans are innocent in all of this and expulsion would harm the fans a lot, and I'm sure the authorities wouldn't see that as a fair trade for something we've had no involvement in.

The final is 23rd at 4:30 and it will happen as stands. If we were getting removed ourselves and Hull would have got wind by now. The hearing hasn't just 'started' today, things have been going on for a number of days.

It will be club and individual specific sanctions, fines, bans and suspended points deductions are all that's on the table if anything is proven. Expulsion at this late stage harms the fans and will create an almighty mess everywhere.

I don't think we'll be kicked out but I highly doubt the IDC gives a monkeys about fans booking travel and hotels etc.

[Turkish]

2 minutes ago, BH_Saint said:

I'm wondering if the "utmost good faith" charge will be dropped as the "observing" charge covers that?

Who decides what good fairly is or what levels there are?

[trousers]

12 minutes ago, obelisk said:

Surely there's been a spot of plea bargaining by now

Indeed, and that might help explain why the club are coming across as pretty relaxed about the whole thing on social media...?

[Osvaldorama]

1 minute ago, trousers said:

Or it might be in our interest to fully and speedily cooperate with the EFL in order to help get them out of the massive problem that any delay would cause them...?

"You scratch out back...etc"

(Usual caveat: yes, I know it doesn't work that way, but who understands how the subconscious mind works...? )

Yeah. I guess it could work in our favour if thy are actually open to negotiation. 
 

But if they go by the rule book, our best option would be to drag it out, hope we win the game and then we’ll be out of the EFL anyway.

That is what I’d do. If we don’t go up, then we can worry about the punishments later. 

[AlexLaw76]

After the EFL released more tickets to both Hull and Saints yesterday, but a bit shut for them, today, to say “yeah, sorry about that we want them back”